I always shoot RAW. But when you're shooting sports and you have to send the photos ASAP, then using jpg is a no brainer.I've made the mistake of shooting a football game (real football, not American ) in raw and then downloading the pics took a very very long time. The guys from the newspaper were calling me all the time: hey where are the photos??? And they were still downloading... Haha

I think JPEG is great and time saving. I don't think it should be used for critical client work such as weddings, portraits, landscapes, etc...

I never shoot JPEG, but I have to say that I'm considering more and more because it does save time. Even if that time doesn't add up to much in one day, it does over the span of years..

One of the top celebrity wedding photographers in the world Mike Colon shoots JPEG and he charges over $20,000 per wedding and I am sure his work would be classified as "critical client work". I am a wedding photographer and when I started out I only shot RAW but as I got better I started to shoot part of the wedding in JPEG and now I shoot only in JPEG and have never looked back. I have post processed hundreds of thousands RAW and JPEG files and I really don't see a benefit of shooting RAW unless you mis the exposure or WB big time. If you take the time to figure out how to use the camera to it's fullest potential then you can make a great looking JPEG. That includes not only nailing the exposure but really getting the correct WB. I use Kelvin and I also adjust the WB shift for each setting I am in to properly correct color casts. For example when I have a bride and groom in a park under the shade of green trees I bring in magenta to the image to balance the green cast the trees will leave. I even take it a step further and adjust the picture style to get more or less contrast or correct the tone of color. Doing those things you can make your JPEG look as good as a converted RAW file. It takes a little time to get used to but I can make those adjustments in seconds now and it has also made me a better photographer because I see and read light better. I am not saying that there is no reason for RAW and if you were going to be doing a lot of heavy editing or creative dodging and burning then RAW is going to help but for. RAW may capture all of the data possible but if you don't need that data then it is a waste. Just my opinion.

Couldn't agree more. By now when I shoot, I have a good knowledge of my clients needs, my portfolio, and my business, and know when i'm shooting how a shot could sit with my clients, my portfolio, and my business, and if I feel I'm going to be able to use it commercially or promo or portfolio, damn right i'm shooting raw... If it's something for a client who wont need all that data or will be downresing to 1080x1920 or smaller for internet, then there's just no need for the end product in mind, unless that is where i have that feeling it can be so much more. Back in the day of the D60's D30's and the 10D's of yester years in the early 2000's, CF cards, for 128, 256 and 512 MB cards cost as much as 16GB, 32GB and 64GB... you just, back then, didn't get much for your money as you do now... If you had a 256 on you or 512, you maybe got 30-50 Raws to the card, and that's being generous. Likewise you go to Jpegs and you can get 100-200 to a card... Being on a strict budget and a 1GB card costing nearly $150 at the time and coming from a film background, you learned to nail exposure, nail white balance, get the best file possible and use RAW sparingly to maximize your cards. Now the digics are getting so good, the detail, overall is so good, the Raw's will always have an edge, but it's to the point where it's a decision I dont even sweat anymore. I now dont have to worry about how many RAW's i can get in the card, but I know I can get a shot 80-90% perfect in camera that my need for post processing forgiveness doesn't require all the RAW detail to get commercially sell-able shots. Different needs for different people and CLIENTS.

I am not aware of any debate? If you want the best possible image you use RAW. If you do not need the extra high quality, you use jpeg. I use both according to my needs. No matter how much better the jpeg rendition gets, RAW is better for the highest possible quality.

One fantastic feature Canon rolled out with DPP without much hoopla is the Digital Lens Optimizer (DLO), which IMO is one of the biggest reasons to shoot RAW, as it does not work for JPEG.

The venerable 85L II has tons of color fringing at f/1.2, and even stopped down to f/2.8 there is substantial amount. First photo is f/2.8 shot with sharpening set to 0 in DPP, no DLO applied. These are ~400% crops.

I have tested similar results with 50L as well, which argues for sticking with Canon branded fast lenses since DLO only works for Canon lenses.

Janco

Why not turn DLO on in your 5D MK III and take a jpeg shot?? Your post processing a raw converted to jpeg seems like you are trying to distort the facts.

This is about in camera jpegs. The lens profiles you need can be installed in your camera in a process similar to that used for DPP.

Nope, Digital Lens Optimizer (DLO) is not available in camera. The different lens (assuming more than one lens) profiles are several 100MB's to download, available only through Canon's DPP. It works ONLY for RAW. In camera is only the "old" vignetting (also distortion?? nope...) correction thing.

Unless speed at the expense of IQ and control is your only priority, jpeg on a DSLR is a pointless option.

I usually put it like this: if you shoot jpeg you start with as much image "information" as you end up with if you shoot Raw and convert the files yourself.

I'll say this too: there's not an in-camera jpeg engine in existence that can process a Raw file as well as I can, and there never will be.

Not necessarily, a few wedding photogs mentioned with the 5d3, they shot jpeg to sd and raw to cf, and took out the sd and plugged it into a monitor/laptop/etc to display ceremony pictures during the reception... One of my clients whom I shoot product photography, their catalog photos get saved at 1200x900 pixels and then resized down the 640x480 for web from there and usually they expect a few hour turnaround per batch of photos... jpeg for that is more information than they can even use for those applications. Every month we do printed publications in which Raw+jpeg are used for print and web purposes... I also have other clients that are nationally known companies, their photos are resized once again down to 640x480... I can shoot raw but in the end, photos are not going to be any better than a jpeg shot correctly in those applications, and quicker and for what it is, the companies couldn't be happier. In the professional arena we got to weigh time spent shooting, time spent post production, money charged per shoot and gauging how much work is needed to pull each shoot off... Ideally RAW is the best medium for everything, but business wise, sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. Doesn't make it right or wrong, it is what it is.

Why not turn DLO on in your 5D MK III and take a jpeg shot?? Your post processing a raw converted to jpeg seems like you are trying to distort the facts.

This is about in camera jpegs. The lens profiles you need can be installed in your camera in a process similar to that used for DPP.

Nope, Digital Lens Optimizer (DLO) is not available in camera. The different lens (assuming more than one lens) profiles are several 100MB's to download, available only through Canon's DPP. It works ONLY for RAW. In camera is only the "old" vignetting (also distortion?? nope...) correction thing.

This is not about vignetting only, but CA and the 5D3 has in camera CA correction.Its doing this quite well.

Personally I usually shot RAW and JPG.But before going for shooting I typically know what I'm going to shoot, I then decide wether I shoot RAW, both or JPG only. I'm flexible.

But back to the OP question.

I was able to test and try the 5d3 now 3 times (UK, Spain [Mallorca] and recently in Germany);and with this Cam, I could certainly imagine to shoot more often JPG only. Also because I have the impression, it does AWB quite well.... And even if I would be in doubt, I would choose the "correct" WB myself and shoot still quickly in JPG with the good lense correction. For Street, Wildlife and Travel its really nice... (I usually don't shoot sports, only sometime some fast moving objects like planes or, well hmm, similar.....)

Then again, I don't earn my money with shooting. I don't restrict myself and why should I nail myself down to one selection, I decide shortly before "reaching" the target.

Logged

'Photographers are the eyes of the world'Focus on Landscape/Nature, Architecture, Technology, Wildlife, Street

Unless speed at the expense of IQ and control is your only priority, jpeg on a DSLR is a pointless option.

I usually put it like this: if you shoot jpeg you start with as much image "information" as you end up with if you shoot Raw and convert the files yourself.

I'll say this too: there's not an in-camera jpeg engine in existence that can process a Raw file as well as I can, and there never will be.

That is simply not true. The IQ of a good JPEG with a nailed exposure and manual WB is just as good as the IQ of a RAW processed image. If you don't need as much flexibility in post processing if you are correcting exposure and WB or creative dodging and burning then RAW it is a waste. You can't use information you don't need. If you need RAW that is great but it is not going to give you a better image just because it has more information.

Unless speed at the expense of IQ and control is your only priority, jpeg on a DSLR is a pointless option.

I usually put it like this: if you shoot jpeg you start with as much image "information" as you end up with if you shoot Raw and convert the files yourself.

I'll say this too: there's not an in-camera jpeg engine in existence that can process a Raw file as well as I can, and there never will be.

That is simply not true. The IQ of a good JPEG with a nailed exposure and manual WB is just as good as the IQ of a RAW processed image. If you don't need as much flexibility in post processing if you are correcting exposure and WB or creative dodging and burning then RAW it is a waste. You can't use information you don't need. If you need RAW that is great but it is not going to give you a better image just because it has more information.

Lesser photographers than you are not able to "nail" exposure and WB 100% of the time....so RAW buys us the ability to recover that "great moment" that might have been lost.

BTW...a "nailed" shot takes almost no time to PP from RAW to JPEG or print. It just "costs" a little storage and minimum time/effort....but the flexibility for us mortals is invaluable.

i find myself shooting more jpeg lately with the 5D3. I did a prom shoot this past weekend and shot RAW + JPEG. I decided to use the JPEG's and honestly i don't think my RAW conversions would have turned out any better/different.

Nope, Digital Lens Optimizer (DLO) is not available in camera. The different lens (assuming more than one lens) profiles are several 100MB's to download, available only through Canon's DPP. It works ONLY for RAW. In camera is only the "old" vignetting (also distortion?? nope...) correction thing.

And even DLO could be in-camera, it would completely slow down the camera, as even with DPP in computer, DLO takes a while to process.

Below is Chromatic Aberration correction in DPP turned up to max (200), and I still prefer the DLO results by far. CA correction *IS* available in-camera, and there's no reason not to turn it on if you shoot jpegs.

Unless speed at the expense of IQ and control is your only priority, jpeg on a DSLR is a pointless option.

I usually put it like this: if you shoot jpeg you start with as much image "information" as you end up with if you shoot Raw and convert the files yourself.

I'll say this too: there's not an in-camera jpeg engine in existence that can process a Raw file as well as I can, and there never will be.

That is simply not true. The IQ of a good JPEG with a nailed exposure and manual WB is just as good as the IQ of a RAW processed image. If you don't need as much flexibility in post processing if you are correcting exposure and WB or creative dodging and burning then RAW it is a waste. You can't use information you don't need. If you need RAW that is great but it is not going to give you a better image just because it has more information.

Lesser photographers than you are not able to "nail" exposure and WB 100% of the time....so RAW buys us the ability to recover that "great moment" that might have been lost.

BTW...a "nailed" shot takes almost no time to PP from RAW to JPEG or print. It just "costs" a little storage and minimum time/effort....but the flexibility for us mortals is invaluable.

I am really not trying to elevate myself as being a superior photographer and saying that everyone who shoots RAW is in somehow incapable of taking great pictures strait out of the camera. I am just saying that it isn't necessarily better and does not create an image with better IQ. JPEG is not just for speed and ease of storage and it can be just as good as RAW in a lot of circumstances.

Unless speed at the expense of IQ and control is your only priority, jpeg on a DSLR is a pointless option.

I usually put it like this: if you shoot jpeg you start with as much image "information" as you end up with if you shoot Raw and convert the files yourself.

I'll say this too: there's not an in-camera jpeg engine in existence that can process a Raw file as well as I can, and there never will be.

That is simply not true. The IQ of a good JPEG with a nailed exposure and manual WB is just as good as the IQ of a RAW processed image. If you don't need as much flexibility in post processing if you are correcting exposure and WB or creative dodging and burning then RAW it is a waste. You can't use information you don't need. If you need RAW that is great but it is not going to give you a better image just because it has more information.

Lesser photographers than you are not able to "nail" exposure and WB 100% of the time....so RAW buys us the ability to recover that "great moment" that might have been lost.

BTW...a "nailed" shot takes almost no time to PP from RAW to JPEG or print. It just "costs" a little storage and minimum time/effort....but the flexibility for us mortals is invaluable.

I am really not trying to elevate myself as being a superior photographer and saying that everyone who shoots RAW is in somehow incapable of taking great pictures strait out of the camera. I am just saying that it isn't necessarily better and does not create an image with better IQ. JPEG is not just for speed and ease of storage and it can be just as good as RAW in a lot of circumstances.

I know...didn't mean to make it sound personal, but was trying to make a point.

Essentially, I do not...generally...disagree with you. However...it....IQ...depends on what you are doing or trying to do.

Most of these are at the "edges"....capturing saturated colors not contained in aRGB, maximizing dynamic range, optimizing exposure to reduce noise in post processing...many more, not worth going through at this time...but available techniques while shooting and in PP.

Basically, if one is happy with jpeg...do it. I shoot raw. With Lightroom, if the shots were "nailed" and I just want to go to the web or print out 4x6s, I can just batch them and step away for a few minutes until done. However, if I want to maximize the output, particularly for larger prints or tight crops...I have the essentials needed.